Catching Controversy
- Thread starter Sprowl
- Start date
Well, he was a consensus top-20 prospect (17/18/17 at BA/MLB/BP) in the winter of 2014-15. Manuel Margot ranked 56/45/14 the following offseason and headlined the deal that got us Kimbrel.
So it's not all that much of a stretch. Maybe not quite a superstar, and certainly not one-up, but he could have been the centerpiece of a deal for a very good player with multiple years of control.
I remember that as well - possibly him and Owens. And I wouldn't even call him an All-Star. That would have really changed the complexion of the roster Maybe he's just good enough in Boston that they don't throw the money at one of Price or Porcello, or one of Pablo/Hanley.
Edit: Found a link, but this was deadline time and rumors were just rumors. The off-season they started all over again.
http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/45478/red-sox-vp-allard-baird-in-philly-sees-lefty-cole-hamels
Last edited:
Pablo/Hanley and the Porcello extension had already happened by the time it looked like the Phillies got serious about moving him, but the Price signing certainly never happens (imo) if we go down that road.
That said the hypothetical "missed the boat" there really goes both ways. That trade wasn't going to happen for *just* Swihart, and somebody like Devers could just as easily been included in the back end fill out. Obviously changing the whole hindsight dynamic in how people would be viewing it today.
Hindsight always imagines prospects being traded for players who were good, never for players who sucked.
But if you are bemoaning that we didn't trade Swihart for Hamels, then you should also be happy that we didn't trade him as part of a package for Jeff Samardzija after 2014, or for someone else who turned out to suck.
To use the Samardzija example, he was traded after 2014 when he was 29, coming off 219 IP with a 2.99 ERA/3.20 FIP. He would have been a logical target, and was traded that same offseason. That is someone we might have traded Swihart for, but we failed to do it. Why doesn't anyone bemoan that failure? Because Samardzija was lousy in 2015, got paid $10 million for it, wouldn't have helped our last place team, and then was a free agent. Sometimes that is how trades work out in reality.
But instead the assumption is always that the trade should have been made at the perfect time for the perfect player. It's basically saying "They should have traded this guy who sucked for this guy who turned out to be good. What a blunder." No kidding. Looks easy when you look back knowing what we know now but in reality you don't get to have a crystal ball.
But if you are bemoaning that we didn't trade Swihart for Hamels, then you should also be happy that we didn't trade him as part of a package for Jeff Samardzija after 2014, or for someone else who turned out to suck.
To use the Samardzija example, he was traded after 2014 when he was 29, coming off 219 IP with a 2.99 ERA/3.20 FIP. He would have been a logical target, and was traded that same offseason. That is someone we might have traded Swihart for, but we failed to do it. Why doesn't anyone bemoan that failure? Because Samardzija was lousy in 2015, got paid $10 million for it, wouldn't have helped our last place team, and then was a free agent. Sometimes that is how trades work out in reality.
But instead the assumption is always that the trade should have been made at the perfect time for the perfect player. It's basically saying "They should have traded this guy who sucked for this guy who turned out to be good. What a blunder." No kidding. Looks easy when you look back knowing what we know now but in reality you don't get to have a crystal ball.
This would be relevant if:
1) i hadn't said on the day that they named Vazquez the starter that they should trade Swihart right then because his value was much more likely to go down or stagnate than it was to go up.
2) it was reasonable to evaluate trades in the way you just did.
Neither applies, however.
Just to make things more efficient in a few years, I'd like the list of people that want to trade Chavis right now. Pretty much the same deal.
He's blocked by another player
He's as hot as he's ever been as a pro
He's getting moved to a new position
He's going to get hurt.
Those are absolute facts right there. His trade value will never be higher. This should be easy.
He's blocked by another player
He's as hot as he's ever been as a pro
He's getting moved to a new position
He's going to get hurt.
Those are absolute facts right there. His trade value will never be higher. This should be easy.
Gradually moving from 3rd to 1st in the minors is exactly the same as moving from catcher to left field in the majors. You're right.
Listen you can complain about not trading him whatever. The mistake was take a DEVELOPING catcher and wasting precious time by throwing him in left field. That is where the mistake was made. It made zero sense at the time and it makes even less sense in hindsight.
In fairness to the argument, you have to acknowledge he wasn't a "catcher" in the same sense someone like Vazquez was. He was a very athletic converted high school shortstop/outfielder a few years removed from those two positions. I've never had a problem with developing a minor league player so he best helps the big club, but I realize some others on this board want all players developed in a way that maximizes their trade value. It's just a different approach. I'd like to exhaust their internal value first, others like it the other way around.
Also, in a perfect developmental world, all prospects arrive in the bigs with perfect developmental symmetry for both the offensive and defensive aspects of their game. Both ML ready at the same time. It would be magical if both happened on the same day. But I'd even settle for the same year.
Last edited:
Literally the only professional position he ever played in 5 years was catcher.
He isn't really blocked though. They (likely) aren't going to re-sign Moreland and Hanley is a terrible first baseman.
I think his trade value is overrated since he isn't going to stick at 3rd and would need to demonstrate competence at a different position.
We're going to be on different sides of this, which is OK. I respect what you're saying. I just don't believe the Sox ruined him with one decision. Development isn't clear. Just because you move a high school shortstop to catcher doesn't mean he's going to arrive in the majors 5 years later as a good one. Maybe the decision to move him to catcher out of high school was a bad call. I know his projections were good and if he could learn catcher to the level that he has, is LF really a stretch for a kid that could run? I don't really know, but he's not the first kid to move positions because his bat was ready and his D wasn't. And just like Garrapolo, his value is zero if he was never a player we were going to trade.
Anyway, this discussion is old, didn't mean to get it going. But mark my word, absent Devers falling off a cliff (literally or figuratively), Chavis is getting traded unless the Sox want to let him DH for 10 years. He just doesn't have many defensive positions, which is ironic because catcher is one where his size/shape fit.
Last edited:
You're off a little with this. Swihart was a Catcher his senior year in high school. It wasn't the Red Sox that switched his position.
Didn't realize he was coming out of HS as a catcher. Here's a quote from him in a PG article from 2011. My point is he's always been a versatile athlete. Moving him to OF wasn't a stretch to keep the bat on the big squad.
"Swihart is uncertain if he’ll remain a catcher as his career progresses, regardless if it’s at the collegiate or professional level. He has experience at just about every other position on the field.
“Right now I have no idea,” he said. “I know a lot of the scouts and college coaches have said they want my bat in the game every day, so they’re just looking at me being in the lineup with my bat and hopefully they’ll find a position for me. But as of right now, it would be catching or third base or outfield, probably.”"
https://www.perfectgame.org/Articles/View.aspx?article=5508
Huh?
He's in AA. He can move to AAA at the same position and build more value by excelling there. He isn't blocked yet.
He was just as good last spring until he neoke his wrist and then his finger.
As already covered, he doesn't have to move anywhere until he gets to the majors, which doesn't have to until he master's AAA.
Ok Nostradamus.
He's blocked in the sense that we've got a player younger than him at third in Fenway. That kid isn't going anywhere. So unless DD wants a player 5'10" or so manning first permanently, my guess is he gets traded. Unless they see him as someone who can play 2nd, but I'm not sure he's quick enough to do that. In the times I've seen him live, he doesn't look as laterally quick as he would need to be. But he rakes, so I guess we'll see.
How about Chavis to 3B and Devers to 1B, if the former proves to be the real deal?
That would make more sense. If Devers is really 6' as listed, then he's pretty close to Napoli and I never complained about his height. But then you've got the whole idea of where would you like to have Devers from a standpoint of where he provides the most advantage. But some form of DH, 1B, 3B combo would have to be in the plan if both of these guys are on the big roster.
isnt the point of the comparison that, if chavis can stay at 3B, we can get more value from trading him than just moving Devers, a competent 3B, to 1B? we are all lamenting the "why ever move swihart off catcher" decision, and if we have a 20 year old guy who can play a good 3B, why mess with it for an unproven minor league who isnt supposed to be all that good defensively anyway? Why not trade him, "maximizing his potential value"?
That could be a very legitimate question at this time next year. There's no reason why Chavis needs to be anywhere but Pawrucket next April. And of course if a trade partner comes along who's willing to pay as if Chavis has already played well offensively and defensively in AAA, then you pull the trigger.
The other consideration is that if Chavis has 30 HR power, they'll also need a DH in 2019. If he's the primary DH and capable of filling in at 3B, that's a pretty valuable piece.
To bring this back to Swihart, I always thought Swihart would be an excellent hitter for a catcher 775 OPS Type, but that's just not that valuable in LF or 1B.
Maybe Chavis at 3b and Devers at 1b has more value to the Redsox than trading Chavis away to "maximize" his value. Under this logic, we should have traded Mookie Betts because his value was maximized at 2b.
Not to mention it's also possible Chavis in LF offers more value than Chavis at 3b. Maybe he's a +1 defender in left field and a -2 defender at 3b. He's pretty awful at 3b at this point. I'd expect him to be moved off the position even if Devers wasn't in the system. I also think his bat will play out anywhere and it'd be stupid to trade him for anything less than a superstar package. Even if he ends up being our DH for 10 years, that has value.
Last edited:
He's not tall enough to be a full time 1B unless his defensive skills are exceptional, which they almost certainly won't be. His future in Boston is as a DH who can spell 1st and 3rd and maybe left if they're lucky. The bat may well support that role (still needs time to show consistency) but he may be more valuable to them as a trade chip if he keeps hitting but the glove doesn't come around at either corner spot.
I don't know if I'd call him blocked since they will certainly have a "hole" to fill at DH at some point soon, but I'm not optimistic that he's a long term solution at 1st.
I can't imagine he'd bring back anything close to a superstar which may be your point and why he's worth keeping. It took more than Willie Calhoun who also hits well, has no position and is more highly rated, to rent Darvish for 2 months. He'd be someone they probably would have had to include to get Kahnle.
I'll stop my derailing now.
If he can become a decent outfielder, he probably has the arm to play RF too. Obviously RF in Fenway is a difficult job where you want a plus defender, and there's a certain someone who has that position locked down for the near future, but between backing up (potentially) all four corner positions and the DH spot, you could probably find a lot of ABs.
After tonight, Vazquez is now an above-average offensive catcher for his league (his wRC+: 89, AL catcher wRC+: 87).
He's 6'1". The average height of the 10 busiest defensive 1Bs in the AL this year is 6'2". I think it's a pretty big stretch to say he's too short to play the position; it's not like he's 5'9" or something. Whether he can produce enough offense to be any use there is another question.
Byrdbrain is right--I missed that Snod was responding to a point about Chavis. Sorry 'bout that.
Byrdbrain is right--I missed that Snod was responding to a point about Chavis. Sorry 'bout that.
Last edited:
I think there is some pronoun confusion here. Snod was talking about Chavis not being tall enough for 1B at 5'10" and I believe you are talking about Swihart since he is 6'1" and it is extremely questionable that he will hit enough to play 1B.
He's been on fire for about a month now and is now providing league average offense at the C position. If his hitting is for real, it looks like they made the correct choice long term by playing him over Swihart. Who'd have thought he'd be the better hitter too?
Certainly more applicable in basketball, but I don't think height is all that important. Standing reach would be a heck of a lot more relevant
And infielders have made 20 throwing errors this year. You have to think a lot of them were either wide, in the dirt, or to other bases. Even if half of them were airmails to first, how many of those get caught by being 2 or 3 inches taller? There could be the rare routine play not made, but I can't imagine that offsets much of his bat.
Garvey has already been mentioned as a shorty 1b at 5'10, but Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, Doug Mientkiecwicz have won many gold gloves between them and are just 6' tall.
As to Vazquez - he's now ops'ing .751 which fits right in near JBJ (.758) and Hanley (.763) and is better than X and Chris Young. He showed flashes from 2011-2013 that he could be an above average bat, so it's not out of the blue that he is settling in a bit.
Last edited:
Hmm, even assuming that you're not talking about just this year...doesn't he have 7 career HRs?
I went to look it up on Baseball Ref, and you are correct. It shows 6 in his career, not updated to include today's.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/event_finder.cgi?request=1&year=2014&year_to=2017&id=vazquch01&divisory=1&from=button&type=b&event=23
Interestingly, all at Fenway, except the one in Toronto a couple of weeks ago. Also... he had 3 in his career as of this year's trade deadline, and has hit 4 since then.
What odds would you have given back in April for the proposition that with two weeks left in the season, Vazquez would have a wRC+ nearly 10 points higher than Xander's?
Same odds I would have given that he would bat 2nd in a game during the most critical point of the regular season.
Vaz has been pretty night and day in his H/A splits... .974 OPS at Fenway, .558 away. The monster seems to help him quite a bit, but even still, a .400+ point spread is damn huge.
Only Devers has a higher home OPS, and Vaz is over .100 points higher than the next closest guy. Highest OPS on the team since the ASB, other than Sam Travis with his 16 at bats.
If he could sustain anything close to what he's done over a full season, he's possibly a top-20ish MVP vote getter, a la Yadier Molina. In any case, the catching controversy doesn't seem to be controversial any longer.
Only Devers has a higher home OPS, and Vaz is over .100 points higher than the next closest guy. Highest OPS on the team since the ASB, other than Sam Travis with his 16 at bats.
If he could sustain anything close to what he's done over a full season, he's possibly a top-20ish MVP vote getter, a la Yadier Molina. In any case, the catching controversy doesn't seem to be controversial any longer.
What do we think of his defense? He doesn't seem like the otherworldly talent he was made out to be(while still solid). I'm not sure where to find framing stats, how great has he been this year on that front?
I think he has been a solid c this year but would def question the top-20ish MVP projection
I think he has been a solid c this year but would def question the top-20ish MVP projection
Stat Corner has him first in the AL and
fourth in MLB (out of 32 with >5000 pitches caught) in +calls per game:
http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php
So, pretty great, at least according to their system.
He's been elite. See The Red Sox Catcher Mid-Season Framing Report for July estimates, when he was 5th-best in the majors. StatCorner's framing estimates also puts Vazquez 5th-best (4000 chances or more). As of yesterday, I have him as giving his pitchers 110 strikes that a league-average catcher would not have; that's roughly the equivalent of 14 runs.
(Edit: Just ran the numbers through Friday and I still have him as 5th in the majors, averaging 1.47 extra strikes per game, behind Flowers, Grandal, Maldonado, and Mathis.)
His caught-stealing rate is a very solid 37% (league average is 26%) but subjectively it seems to me that opponents are pretty respectful of him (and Sandy Leon, who has a similar 33%) and are pretty conservative about trying to run, so their base-stealing prevention probably goes further than the simple CS%.
Last edited:
Sean McAdam noted on twitter last night that the steal by Longoria was the first against Vazquez since August 3. And only the fourth attempted steal against Vazquez since that date (22 games). Seems like he garners a ton of respect as far as that goes.
Sorry for not fact-checking my post. Not sure where I got the 8-0 figure. Mea culpa.
How about this: The Red Sox have won every game in which he's homered. (5-0 in 2017.)
Including a 8-7 win over the Yankees on 5/1/16 (his 2 run HR broke a 6-6 tie and was the margin of victory) and a 3 run HR in a 11-1 win over the Rays on 9/25/14 (as part of a 4/4, 8TB day).
So I'm with you on him being a winning binky.